Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged three separate assessment orders passed under Section 74(9) of the TN/CGST Act, 2017 for assessment years 2019-20, 2021-22 and 2022-23, each preceded by DRC-01/DRC-01A notices following a common inspection by the Intelligence Wing between 15.11.2023 and 17.11.2023. Appeals against these orders were filed on 22.07.2025 — 76 days late for two of the orders and 83 days late for the third — beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107. The Deputy Commissioner (GST) Appeal, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jamshedpur, rejected all three appeals for want of jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory limit.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the appellate authority's rejection of appeals filed beyond the condonable delay period under Section 107 leaves the writ court powerless to grant any relief.
  2. On what terms delayed appeals against Section 74 orders can nonetheless be directed to be heard on merits.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Sought quashing of both the original assessment orders and the appellate rejection orders, and a direction for fresh assessment after a proper personal hearing.
  • Highlighted that 10% of the disputed tax had already been pre-deposited at the time of filing the appeals before the first respondent.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The appellate authority had correctly applied Singh Enterprises (2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)) in rejecting appeals filed beyond the condonable period of limitation, since it lacked power to condone delay further.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted the petitioner had already pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax and was actively agitating the matter, and balanced this against the strict limitation bar under Singh Enterprises.
  • Directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeals on merits, without reference to the period of limitation, subject to the petitioner depositing a further 15% of the disputed tax under each of the three impugned orders (over and above the 10% already paid), within 30 days, in cash.
  • Subject to such deposit, the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeals on merits within six months; pending compliance, an interim stay of recovery for 30 days was granted, continuing further only if the 15% deposit was made within that window.

Important Clarification

  • Even where an appellate authority correctly rejects a GST appeal as time-barred under Singh Enterprises (which denies it power to condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit), the writ court can still direct the appeal to be heard on merits "without reference to limitation", provided the assessee accepts an enhanced pre-deposit condition (here, an additional 15%, over the standard 10%, of the disputed tax) as the price of that indulgence.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, TN/CGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax, underlying the three assessment orders.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 — appeal and pre-deposit; condonable delay limit as construed in Singh Enterprises.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, in favour of the Assessee — the time-barred appeals were revived for a merits hearing, conditional on an enhanced pre-deposit.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No.: W.P.(MD) Nos. 21557, 21559 and 21562 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan
Date of Order: 6th August, 2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.